Considerable sums of money (from Finland) are paid into the company’s bank accounts for training packages.

The NBI do not elaborate further on what OneCoin do with funds invested, suggesting they weren’t able to obtain that information.

That in itself is not surprising, considering OneCoin likely use banking channels in Asia.

Upon the NBI completing their preliminary investigation, further action now appears to be in the hands of the Prosecutor’s Office.

The Finnish Prosecutor’s Office has examined the National Bureau of Investigation’s report.

As per Chapter 3 of the Criminal Investigations Act, § 3. and on the basis of (the NBI’s) investigative material, (the Prosecutor’s Office) will look into wheither it (OneCoin) is associated with criminal activity.

(This) can be reliably estimated after publication (of OneCoin’s source-code), which is likely to happen by the end of 2016.

The last sentence of the translation above suggests that criminal activity is present, but further investigation is required.

As to the crypto-currency source code. It has no bearing on ROIs paid out by OneCoin. A cryptocurrency script in and of itself does not generate ROI funds.

In OneCoin, those funds are sourced from newly invested affiliate funds – making OneCoin a Ponzi scheme.

The NBI meanwhile explain that, based on their own preliminary investigation, they currently don’t have enough to take the case further.

Accordingly, the NBI (KRP) will continue to monitor OneCoin’s activities.

KRP will continue with relevant information gathering utilizing the domestic and international intelligence channels. Should the situation change, the matter will be reviewed.

National Bureau of Investigation calls for the utmost caution with the participation of these types of opportunity because they are associated with difficult to anticipate economic and criminal risks.

(In the) National Bureau of Investigation’s view, the promise or expectation of an oversize yield are not realistic.

Realistic or not, the implied promise of “oversized yields” is exactly why purportedly thousands of OneCoin investors have dumped millions of dollars into the scheme.

I suspect a large factor in the NBI’s decision is the fact that OneCoin has no formal business or banking operations in Finland.

As they state, the company is based out of Bulgaria. The exact nature of OneCoin’s banking operations is unclear, but we do know murky banking channels in China play a significant role (owing to the region being a primary source of new investment into the scheme).

Owing to these murky banking channels, complaints about lengthy withdrawal times are a staple on OneCoin’s Facebook page:

Dr Ruja madam now with draw is taking so much time. from last one month withdraw is not taking place.. no response is getting from support. plz look into matter seriously. (October 29th)

Other comments discussing OneCoin withdrawal problems that were published last I checked OneCoin’s Facebook page, have since been deleted.

If the NBI pressed the matter further at this time, it is unlikely to have an effect on OneCoin’s global business operations. Of note is the mention of “international intelligence channels”, which suggests OneCoin is already be on the regulatory radar of other countries.

Owing to the secretive nature of regulatory investigations however, obviously no further specifics are available at this time.

In any event, from the sounds of it Finnish Public Prosecutors suspect criminal activity and their own investigation continues. I imagine whatever comes of that will be limited to prosecution of local Finnish promoters of OneCoin when the time comes.

66 Comments on “Finland’s NBI to continue monitoring OneCoin”

The NBI do not elaborate further on what OneCoin do with funds invested, suggesting they weren’t able to obtain that information.

That is your assumption not stated in the NBI report.

“As per Chapter 3 of the Criminal Investigations Act, § 3. and on the basis of (the NBI’s) investigative material, (the Prosecutor’s Office) found that it (OneCoin) is associated with criminal activity, can be reliably estimated until time of publication, which is likely to happen at the end of 2016.”

Correct translated Prosecutors found that IF (not it), OneCoin is associated with criminal activity, it will be reliably estimated until the time of publication which is likely to happen at the end of 2016. So in other words wait until the end of 2016 and then you will now.

Suggesting – you are pointing people to your personal opinion. Why not letting people read the NBI result and make their own conclusions?

Owner of blog shares opinion on blog. More news at 6…

We all know that Google Translate doesn’t do a perfect job.
But reading the whole sentence you can understand

Now who’s assuming…

The only people Public Prosecutors in Finland can bring charges about are local promoters. That obviously requires additional investigation on the Public Prosecutors behalf (NBI only investigated OneCoin).

Whether they do or not remains to be seen, with a timeframe of 12-13 months given.

Personally I think OneCoin will reach Ponzi critical mass long before then. 2 years or so it the standard for online schemes before the ROIs spiral well and truly out of control.

Mrno:
Suggesting – you are pointing people to your personal opinion. Why not letting people read the NBI result and make their own conclusions ?

We all know that Google Translate doesn’t do a perfect job.

The main conclusion was that NBI National Bureau of Investigation had found enough reason to continue with a criminal investigation.

It’s not a preliminary investigation anymore, but a normal criminal one. The investigation has been upgraded rather than downgraded.

It also found reason to warn consumers / investors against it.

National Bureau of Investigation calls for the utmost caution with the acquisition of this type of service because they are associated are difficult to anticipate economic and criminal risks. National Bureau of Investigation’s view, the promises of an oversize yield expectations are not realistic.

If the person involved feel themselves victim to a crime, there is no reason why he makes the police investigation.

As they state, the company is based out of Bulgaria. The exact nature of OneCoin’s banking operations is unclear, but we do know murky banking channels in China play a significant role (owing to the region being a primary source of new investment into the scheme).

Most of the Chinese affiliates are probably fake ones.

OneCoin’s main banking channels have been listed in marketing material.

Those two banks, DSK Bank in Bulgaria and Mashreq Bank in UAE, have been listed on multiple websites as the official methods for wire transfer of funds IN to OneCoin. Mashreq was removed in September.

The idea that “murky banking channels in China play a significant role” can be useful as unverified, secondary information. It’s based on the theory that “the region being a primary source of new investment into the scheme”.

I’m a native finnish speaker and I want to clear some obvious translation errors that seem to create some confusion. These are quite quick translations where I try to paraphrase the contents of these paragraphs to somewhat understandable english.

Most of the time google translate and other similar tools are quite unreliable when it comes to translating anything to finnish or from finnish to some other language.

Some parts of that police bulletin is written using such grammar structures that will certainly create a hell of a mess in any translation tool…

Paragraph 5

Sisä-Suomen syyttäjänvirasto….

What is said here (leaving out some unnecessary references to Finnish law):

Central Finlands prosecutors office has reviewed the report by Central Criminal Police (KRP) and has concluded that possible illegality of this scheme can be reliably evaluated only when publication** takes place, which probably happens near the end of year 2016.

**This “publication” refers to the previous paragraph where it is stated that the onecoin source code can be expected to be published earliest by the end of 2016.

This does not refer to any report by prosecutors office or by police…….. In other words, right now it seems the police and the prosecutor will be waiting until the pyramid collapses, because it’s quite obvious that there won’t be any publication of (non-existent) source code….

Paragraph 6
Esitutkinnan käynnistämiselle…

What is said here:

With the current available information, there are no grounds for starting a criminal investigation.

Central Criminal Police will continue gathering information about this matter using both domestic and foreign sources. If the situation changes, the matter (whether there is enough reason to start a criminal investigation) will be reviewed.

So….there is no ongoing criminal investigation because they didn’t find enough reason to start one at this time. They will be following the matter.

Last paragraph

If a person involved in this scheme feels that he/she has been subjected to a crime, there is no reason not to file in a request for criminal investigation to the police.

This last paragraph makes me believe that none of the participants in this scheme (in Finland that is) feel like they have been scammed (at this moment). And even if they feel so, they have not reported this to the police.

If the cops had even one crime report by someone who though they had lost their money, there would be much stonger case….and they could more easily start an actual criminal investigation. But it seems we will have to wait for that….

For now, the police is in a situation where they feel they don’t have even a strong enough suspicion that somebody would have been subjected to some sort of a crime.

I think that a factor here is that onecoin has officially only declared that they are selling training material and that’s what folks are supposedly getting from them in exchange of their money…

Thanks for the clarifications Mr_Finland. I’ve updated the article to better reflect the source-text.

I do believe a source-code is running somewhere to generate the coins, but this is neither here nor there. Instead of creating the Ponzi points manually for distribution they just have an algorithm do it.

The problem is and always has been the ROI value attached to the points, which is pegged to and paid out of newly invested affiliate funds.

Sadly victims of Ponzi schemes don’t report they’ve been scammed until the ROIs collapse completely, by which time it’s far too late.

I think that a factor here is that onecoin has officially only declared that they are selling training material and that’s what folks are supposedly getting from them in exchange of their money…

Oz:
I’m pretty sure at some point the fund that are deposited in are then transferred to Asia. These are the accounts that will be attached to outgoing transfer methods (payment processors)

As an information type for a fact oriented blog, that should be seen as “secondary information”.

Ben or some others with OneCoin accounts can probably fill in some accurate information about transaction methods for money IN and money OUT. I used third party sources, e.g. I checked a video rather than an actual account.

“Murky banking channels in China” have very little substance as information. It doesn’t point to any specific type of source, e.g. “several OneCoin affiliates have reported being paid through murky banking channels in China”, or “OneCoin’s T&C lists some murky banking channels in China among its withdrawal options”.

You will either need to add some substance to it or you will need to classify it as “vague theory, not yet verified”. 🙂

Mr_Finland:
Hello
I’m a native finnish speaker and I want to clear some obvious translation errors that seem to create some confusion. These are quite quick translations where I try to paraphrase the contents of these paragraphs to somewhat understandable english.

Thank you for clarifying the details.

We try to avoid using too many translated sources because they will usually cause a lot of confusion. We prefer to have some native ones telling about the main content.

Central Finlands prosecutors office has reviewed the report by Central Criminal Police (KRP) and has concluded that possible illegality of this scheme can be reliably evaluated only when publication** takes place, which probably happens near the end of year 2016.

From that part of the message, it sounds like someone has sent them the wrong type of information, or that they have entered the case from the wrong perspective — as some type of “cyber crime” or something rather than as “investment fraud”.

“Investment fraud”

OneCoin is primarily an investment fraud, a Ponzi scheme type of investment fraud. It’s also a pyramid scheme type of fraud. Any cyber crime component will be secondary or tertiary, but OneCoin clearly has some potential for that too. It also has some potential for money laundering and tax fraud.

I have used a rather broad definition of “investment” there in the “investment fraud”, focused on how OneCoin operates in reality rather than on specific laws. A prosecutor or an enforcement agency will need to find the correct laws themselves.

Oz:
I mentioned it here because it’s reasonable to expect NBI investigators from Finland aren’t going to get very far chasing up money trails in Asia (or anywhere outside of the EU for that matter).

That’s why we should focus on identifiable information properly backed up by sources rather than on “vague theories”.

China Union Pay is one of the listed withdrawal options. It can clearly be identified by name rather than as “murky payment processor in China”.

One problem is that I used third party sources, e.g. back office training videos and “payment instructions”. And I didn’t focus on any details, I just tried to get a quick overview. I haven’t specifically tried to identify “active payment channels in and out of the OneCoin program”.

Mr_Finland:
If the cops had even one crime report by someone who though they had lost their money, there would be much stonger case….and they could more easily start an actual criminal investigation. But it seems we will have to wait for that…

You have probably interpreted it correctly. “The case is currently too vague for any specific criminal investigation, but we will continue to monitor the case”.

The prosecutor will need to find some identifiable substance, something that can be identified clearly, something he can build a case on. And it will need to be about criminal activities.

1. The case itself, what they have looked into and the type of sources.

The National Bureau of Inner Finnish unit has investigated initially marketed in Finland OneCoin virtual money legality of the matter. Has been consulted mm. OneCoinin representatives, OneCoin-training who have bought persons, as well as experts in the field.

* They have consulted OneCoin representatives and some vaguely identified “experts in the field”. That indicates that they have focused on crypto-currencies as a main factor.

2. The company itself and how it operates / claims to operate.

According to the report, it appears that OneCoinin operations are managed from Bulgaria. The company’s bank account is paid from Finland considerable sums in training packages.

Packages consist of general economic information that is readily and publicly available. OneCoin company has announced the sale of its purely economic education.

* Managed from Bulgaria.

* People pay for training packages.

3. A focus on the mining process?

The company’s representative in education linked to the price level that a rising number of options, which can give a “mineable” onecoin coins the company’s computers.

Mining the concept of mathematical equations solution based on the source code that results in a block chain, which is equivalent to one-onecoin coins.

The company stated that the coins extraction takes place in secret from the public until 50% of the coins has been generated from. When 70% of the currency has been created, the public will be announced onecoin virtual money source code, which is based on mining.

This is stated by the company’s information postpone the publication of the source code to the public earlier than the end of 2016. Until then, the public and the stock options to the company surrendered persons will have to wait onecoin-value coins määrittymistä.

* From that perspective, the case is clearly too vague for any further criminal investigation, so the decision is actually correct enough.

4. A conclusion that some required information first will be available later, sometime in late 2016. The case as it currently is doesn’t meet some requirements in Criminal Investigation Act, Chapter 3, §3.

Inner Finnish prosecutor’s office has examined the National Bureau of Investigation to Chapter 3 of the Criminal Investigations Act, § 3 of the report in accordance with and on the basis of investigative material found that it is associated with criminal activity, can be reliably estimated until time of publication, which is likely to happen at the end of 2016.

* That’s about WHY they have made that decision. There’s not enough identifiable “substance” to support an investigation.

5. “The case will be monitored”, etc.

The preliminary investigation, there are no prerequisites for starting with current results. KRP will continue with relevant information gathering utilizing the domestic and international intelligence channels. Should the situation change, the matter will be reviewed.

* The decision isn’t final. The decision will be reviewed if relevant new information becomes available.

6. General consumer / investor warning.

National Bureau of Investigation calls for the utmost caution with the acquisition of this type of service because they are associated are difficult to anticipate economic and criminal risks. National Bureau of Investigation’s view, the promises of an oversize yield expectations are not realistic.

7. “File a complaint if you feel you have been defrauded”.

If the person involved feel themselves victim to a crime, there is no reason why he makes the police investigation.

A third way to look at it is to look at what a “preliminary investigation” is about, e.g. purpose of the investigation, steps and procedures, etc.

I have some problems with translated sources, so I decided to look at an English description from the Swedish public prosecutor. That’s “close enough”.

Preliminary investigation

Once a crime has come to the attention of the police, a preliminary investigation is initiated.

The object is to find out who can be suspected of the crime and whether or not there is sufficient evidence to initiate an action. The prosecutor leads the preliminary investigation from the point when a certain individual can be reasonably suspected of having committed the offence. In the case of less serious offences, the police conduct the preliminary investigations from beginning to end.

As the person in charge of leading the investigation, the prosecutor is responsible for ensuring that the crime is investigated in the best way possible. The investigations are conducted by the police on the instructions of the prosecutor.

* They will need to identify a suspect, the type of crime, potential victims, etc. — all the relevant elements.

The prosecutor follows the investigations on a continuous basis and constantly determines which investigation measures and decisions are necessary. If the investigation concerns a serious and complicated crime, the prosecutor will often take part directly in the investigation in connection, for instance, with reconstructions of the crime or with important interrogations.

Precisely how a preliminary investigation is conducted in detail depends, of course, on the type of crime being investigated. Following a crime of violence, the police may conduct a crime scene investigation and question victims, witnesses and suspects.

The leader of the preliminary investigation may decide to introduce coercive measures such as cordoning off the crime scene, searching premises or confiscating evidence.

Technical evidence.

Technical evidence

It is often the case that the National Swedish Laboratory of Forensic Science (SKL) or the National Board of Forensic Medicine (RMV) are consulted in order to judge technical, chemical or medicinal questions that are of importance to the investigation.

SKL’s analyses of firearms, narcotics and DNA traces are important features of criminal investigation work, and may sometimes be decisive for the results of the preliminary investigations.

Each year the RMV analyses a large number of blood samples in order to investigate the influence of drugs in connection with a suspected narcotics offence or drunken driving. When investigating a crime of violence, the RMV’s forensic report may provide the answer to what kind of violence may have given rise to the victim’s injuries.

Once the preliminary investigation has been concluded, the prosecutor judges whether or not there is sufficient evidence to bring a court case against the suspect.

The length of time it takes to complete a preliminary investigation depends to a large extent on what it concerns – a preliminary investigation into a case of drunken driving can often be completed over the course of half a day, whereas it may take several years to investigate a serious financial crime.

Mr_Finland:
This last paragraph makes me believe that none of the participants in this scheme (in Finland that is) feel like they have been scammed (at this moment). And even if they feel so, they have not reported this to the police.

If the cops had even one crime report by someone who though they had lost their money, there would be much stonger case….and they could more easily start an actual criminal investigation. But it seems we will have to wait for that….

You seem to have interpreted it quite correctly.

The case itself is currently too vague for any criminal investigation.

The focus in the report on crypto-currencies and mining doesn’t mean that they haven’t looked into it as a potential investment fraud or as a pyramid scheme. It only means that crypto-currency, mining and educational packages were the parts they most clearly could identify.

Taken from Mr_Finland: I assume he knows his own language better then we do.

What is said here (leaving out some unnecessary references to Finnish law):

Central Finlands prosecutors office has reviewed the report by Central Criminal Police (KRP) and has concluded that possible illegality of this scheme can be reliably evaluated only when publication** takes place, which probably happens near the end of year 2016.

**This “publication” refers to the previous paragraph where it is stated that the onecoin source code can be expected to be published earliest by the end of 2016.

But it is all connected. You guys have stated several times that coin is fake that there probably is a script running showing some fake numbers and so on. Now there could actually be a real cryptocurrency.

You are taking stuff out of context from your own statements.

Putting out a lot of statements and when one of them seems to possible be wrong you say. Well that doesn’t matter because I mentioned another one. If that one fails then you have a third one and so on. Stay true to your own statement that is all the readers ask.

Mrno: Stay true to your own statement that is all the PONZI APOLOGISTS ask.

There, fixed it for ya.

As a matter of interest, Mrno, when you’re playing an online PC, XBox or PS4 type game, how do you decide which parts are “real” and which parts are clever scripting and programming made to look as “real” as possible ???

littleroundman: Well my point is that whatever statement you put you have to either admit your where wrong or stick to it.

It’s like me hanging you out as a pedofile and a thief. Turns out you may not be a thief, but hey he’s still a pedofile. Even if I can’t prove it.

Adding phrases like PONZI APOLOGISTS doesn’t make your statement the right one. FACTS matter nothing else. Seems to be quite hard for some people to understand the difference between facts and personal statements.

Terrence B : I went in with a starter package. Already tripled my money. Doing this just for test. Doesn’t matter to me if you guys are right and I’m wrong. What matters are facts. How hard can that be.

Tell me something. When bitcoin started and you had your first 100 000 coins. Could you spend them? Could you use them to buy somewhere? If so please share the information because I must have missed that part.

That’s the standards in the United States. Finland doesn’t need to have exactly the same standards, but at least it has some types of standards.

NBI / KRP can’t investigate “investment fraud” theories, e.g. it will be unable to get an search warrant from a court if the case is based primarily on theories.

The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) in the United States is the imperative on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one’s own position.

The burden of proof is often associated with the Latin maxim semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, the best translation of which in this context is: “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.”

She or he who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning (s)he needs no evidence to support her or his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party.

They had enough information to initiate a preliminary investigation, but not enough evidence to proceed with an investigation.

Mrno:
Terrence B : I went in with a starter package. Already tripled my money. Doing this just for test. Doesn’t matter to me if you guys are right and I’m wrong. What matters are facts. How hard can that be.

Actually, what is said is: “Innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW”

So, yes, you are wrong.

Happily for victims and potential victims, bloggers don’t have to “prove” anything to the standards required in a court when it comes to exposing internet fraud.

Victims and potential victims have a choice, believe or don’t believe.

You don’t believe.

Fair enough.

It’s your money to do with as you will.

Your decision doesn’t affect anyone here one bit.

Having said that, you, on the other hand NEED people to believe, because, without their money, the fraud in which you have chosen to participate will come tumbling down in double quick time.

Your demands for “proof” are nothing more than a red herring to cover the fact without new money from those joining OneCoin after you, OneCoin will collapse as all ponzis do, taking your so called “earnings” along with it.

Mrno:
Thumbs up for facts that people post here. If the facts state that its a criminal activity then I will fight for that cause but that can’t be done without facts.

The decision from NBI / KRP wasn’t a question of fact. It was about what the law said. The public prosecutor simply had too weak evidence to go forward with an investigation. But they had enough information to publish a general warning to investors.

The public prosecutor is currently unable to exclude that OneCoin can be a legitimate business, and unable to prove that it isn’t. So the case will be monitored but not investigated.

The facts are unchanged = OneCoin can still be a Ponzi/pyramid hybrid.

I understand and I know that it can still be a ponzi. Having the police monitoring it is good the way I see it. If they aren’t doing things outside of the law then it’s all good. If they are then this will surely cause problems. Win win for everyone who has joined already.

littleroundman: Well by your response you admit that everything you write are purely statements without facts. To be fair this blog actually helps OneCoin because people do read the comments and that turns out to give them more information then the actual article. 🙂

Without writing statements that aren’t backed up with facts you won’t have any visitors to this blog. And without them you won’t get any advertisement money. So how is that different?

Let’s say you are completely correct and this is a Ponzi scheme. The police will be all over them and some people may or may not get their money back. Not a single person I’ve heard of have joined using a fortune. Just ask around and you will find out.

Now let’s say you are completely wrong. What then? You will then have misled people in believing your truth is the ultimate truth and resulting in a missed opportunity. It will probably hurt the credibility of this blog in the future to come then.

Criminal Investigation Act
(805/2011; entry into force on 1 January 2014)
(amendments up to 1145/2013 included)

. . .

Chapter 3 – General provisions on the conduct of a criminal investigation

Section 3 – Conduct of the criminal investigation

(1) The criminal investigation authority shall conduct an investigation when, on the basis of a report made to it or otherwise, there is reason to suspect that an offence has been committed.

(2) Before initiating the criminal investigation, the criminal investigation authority shall if necessary clarify the circumstances connected with the suspected offence referred to in subsection 1, in particular so that no one is unjustifiably deemed a suspect in the offence and so that, when the matter requires it, the decision referred to in section 9, subsection 1 or section 10, subsection 1 on the waiving of the criminal investigation can be made. The provisions of this Act apply as appropriate to the measures that precede the initiation of the criminal investigation.

(3) The head investigator decides when necessary on whether or not to conduct a criminal investigation as well as on clarification of the matters that may possibly be needed in order to make the decision. The criminal investigation measures necessary to clarify the matter may be undertaken already before the decision of the head investigator.

– – – – – –
finlex.fi/fi/laki/kaannokset/2011/en20110805.pdf

It’s generally not a good idea to read law rules out of context with other rules, but the main point there seems to be about protecting people from being unjustifiable deemed a suspect.

CHAPTER 4

Chapter 4 – Criminal investigation principles and the rights of persons participating in the criminal investigation

Section 1 – Principle of neutrality

Facts and evidence both for and against the suspect in the offence shall be clarified and taken into account in the criminal investigation.

Section 2 – Presumption of innocence

In a criminal investigation, the suspect in the offence shall be presumed not guilty.

Section 3 – The right against self-incrimination

The suspect has the right not to contribute to the clarification of the offence in which he or she is suspected.

Section 4 – Principle of proportionality

A criminal investigation measure and the resulting encroachment into the rights of a person shall be justifiable in proportion to the offence under investigation, the need for clarifying the matter and the age, health and other corresponding factors related to the person who is the subject of the measure, and to other
circumstances that are relevant in the matter.

Section 5 – Principle of minimum inconvenience

(1) The criminal investigation may not encroach upon the rights of anyone beyond what is necessary for the achievement of the purpose of the criminal investigation.

(2) A criminal investigation measure may not cause anyone unnecessary harm or inconvenience.

Section 6 – Principle of sensitivity

Parties in the criminal investigation and other persons participating in the criminal investigation shall be treated in a sensitive manner.

Mrno:
No you didn’t have to buy videos, pdf for 130, 500, 1000 euros and so on. But you did have to have your own hardware working around the clock to mine. Having an electrical bill as high as a skyscraper. Anyone that did try to mine bitcoins know this for a fact.

So it all comes down to different solutions to try to mine these coins.

Now you’re comparing pdf files as much as equal to having hardware. So how exactly do you use the pdf-files to mine coins? The pdf files aren’t a solution to mine coins. They are only a bad excuse to collect ponzi money.

Why do you need to mine onecoins? There’s no actual need of complex mathematical algorithms taking years of time for massive server rooms to compute. That would just be complete madness.

Howcome Onecoin does not accept onecoins as a payment method for example purchasing Onecloud? Shouldn’t they be pioneers with accepting onecoins as a payment method?

Maybe you can clear up something for me since you are a major believer and promoter of OneCoin.

On the 13th of October the website “OneCoin-Finland” Tommi Vuorinen, country manager, wrote, and I quote:

“The Company (OneCoin) has acquired its own bank, see the Hermes Bank, hermesbankonline.com. This allows for the future of global banking services significantly the existing players in the sector at lower cost.”

Someone who was wanting to confirm if this was true, on the 14th of October sent this email was sent to Hermes Bank customer service:

“Hi who owns this bank? I have head that Onecoin (and) Ruja Ignatova have bought this bank, is that true? Thank you.”

To which the bank replied very quickly with the following answer and again I quote:

“Dear Sir,

Please be informed that the below information is not valid. Our Bank never had any negotiations with Onecoin.

Kind Regards,

Customer Service Representative”

This is not the first lie that has been told by the good Dr and OneCoin, so why doesn’t Finland’s country manager know what he posted was a total lie?

Not comparing pdf to hardware. Pointing out the main difference in the mining procedure.

You do know that mining the last bitcoins for instance take longer then the first ones. Same goes for any cryptocurrency. Not everyone has the knowledge or money to be mining the traditional way. This is another way of solving the same problem.

I understand that it bothers you OZ that it’s education they sell and not just tokens or onecoins. But if thousands of people don’t have a problem with it why spend so much energy on something that doesn’t bother people.

(Ozedit: Offtopic derail attempt removed)

When it comes to the statement from some person in Finland it’s quite difficult for me to have any opinions on that. None of the members I have contact with know anything about Hermes bank. Not official information as far as I know.

I go by the official information not rumors or statements from some upline. If it would come from HQ then I would have had the same question as you have.

Mrno:
Stating that 20% can be withdrawn in itself is more then what you guys said before. According to your crews comments you couldn’t withdraw at all. So it increases over time now?

That’s probably correct. OneCoin had multiple withdrawal problems in September. It was first reported on September 1st 2015 from a OneCoin member. It was confirmed by multiple other sources.

Tom Tech: (#962)

(Sepember 1st 2015)

ok, so after having a. new lowered limit on how many coins you can sell daily and b. having a bunch of sell orders expired I did manage to recoup 1,000 euro initial investment and get it to my bank 2 months ago.

Now I have tried again and after a few days the money went back to the onecoin cash account and a message of failed transaction appeared.

I sent them a note and the email exchange is very interesting, they are either very very stupid or they do not want to pay out any more.

Forgive me, but when someone says they are a “country” manager, I take it to mean for the whole country and would be the only one. So surprised that there are more than one country manager.

One of the real big problems that OneCoin has is we are now coming into Black December, and starting the middle of November people start taking money out for Christmas presents. If OneCoin puts a limit on withdrawals to keep money in the system, kiss this bye.